Conference of the British Social-Democratic Party

Published:Zvezda, No. 18, April 16, 1911.

      Signed:V. Ilyin.

      Published according to theZvezdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 17,

      pages173-178.Translated:Dora CoxTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

ManyEuropean socialist parties have taken advantage of the
Easter holidays (April 16, N. S.) to hold their conferences: the French,
Belgian, Dutch (its opportunist section), the British Social-Democratic
Party, and the British Independent Labour Party. We propose to draw the
attention of our readers to some items discussed at the conferences of the
two last-mentioned parties.

The31st Annual Conference of the British Social-Democratic Party
(S.D.P.) was held in Coventry. The most interesting item discussed was that
of “armaments and foreign policy”. It is well known that Britain and
Germany have been arming very intensively during the past few
years. Competition between these two countries in the world market is
becoming increasingly acute. The danger of a military conflict is
approaching more and more formidably. The bourgeois jingoist press of both
countries is raining millions upon millions of inflammatory articles upon
the masses, inciting them against the “enemy”, howling about the
inevitable danger of a “German invasion” or of a “British attack” and
clamouring for increased armaments. The socialists of Britain and Germany,
and also of France (whom Britain would be particularly glad to drag into
war in order to have a continental land army against Germany) are devoting
much attention to the threatening war, fighting with might and main against
bourgeois chauvinism and armaments, and doing all they can to explain to
the most backward sections of the proletariat and of the petty bourgeoisie
what misfortunes ensue from a war which serves exclusively the interests of
the bourgeoisie.

Therewere sad exceptions to this among the socialists, several of whom
were prominent leaders of the British S.D.P., among them Hyndman. The
latter allowed himself to be scared by the screams of the British bourgeois
press about the “German menace”, and went so far as to assert that
Britain had to arm for defence, that she had to have a powerful navy, that
Wilhelm was the aggressive party.

True,Hyndman encountered opposition, in fact very strong opposition,
within the S.D.P. itself. A number of resolutions from the branches were
emphatically against him.

TheCoventry Congress, or Conference—to use the English term, which
does not correspond in meaning to the Russian “konferentsia”—had to
settle the issue. A resolution emphatically opposing any kind of jingoist
point of view was proposed by the Central Hackney branch (Hackney, a
district in North-East London). In its report on the Conference,Justice, the central organ of the S.D.P., quotes only the end of
what it terms a “lengthy” resolution, calling for a determined struggle
against all increases in armaments, and opposing all colonial and financial
aggression. Zelda Kahan, in supporting the resolution, emphasised that
during the last forty years Britain had been the aggressor, that Germany
would not gain by making Britain a German province; and that no such danger
existed. “The British Navy,” she said, “is kept to maintain the
Empire. Never had the S.D.P. made a bigger and more terrible mistake than
in identifying the Party with the jingoist warmongers. As a consequence of
this mistake,” said Kahan, “the British Social-Democrats have placed
themselves outside the inter national movement.”

Theentire Party Executive Committee, including Harry Quelch—we
have to confess with shame—supported Hyndman. The “amendment” they
moved declared no more nor less than the following: “This Conference holds
that the maintenance of an adequate navy for national defence” is an
“immediate object”!... Then, of course, it goes on to repeat all the
“good old words”—about combating imperialist policy, about war against
capitalism, etc. All this honey, of course, was spoiled by aspoonful
of tar, by the phrase recognising the need for an “adequate” navy, a
phrase that isbourgeois both in its evasiveness and in its pure chauvinism. This is in
1911, a time when the British naval budget clearly reveals a tendency to
unlimited growth; this is in a country whose navy “defends and protects
the Empire”, i.e., India included, with its population of nearly
300,000,000 that is being plundered and outraged by British bureaucrats,
where “enlightened” British statesmen, like the liberal and “radical”
Morley, sentence natives totransportationor inflictcorporal
punishmentfor political offences!

Themiserable sophistry Quelch had to resort to may be seen from the
following passage in his speech (as reported inJustice, which
defends Hyndman)!... “If we believe in national autonomy, we must have
national defence and that defence must be adequate, or it is useless. We
are opposed to imperialism, whether British or German; the small
nationalities under Prussian rule hate her despotism, and the small nations
threatened by her regard the British Navy and German Social-Democracy as
their only hope....”

Howquickly those who step on the slippery slope of opportunism slide to the
bottom! The British Navy, which helps to enslave India (not a very
“small” nation), is placedon a parwith German
Social-Democracy as a champion of national liberty.... Zelda Kahan was right
when she said that never yet had British Social-Democracy so disgraced
itself. Its sectarian character, noted and condemned long ago by

Engels,[1]had never before been so clearly revealed as it was by theeasewith which even men like Quelch cango overto the
chauvinists.

Thevoting on the resolution was evenly divided: 28 for the Executive
Committee and 28 against. In order to win a deplorable victory—Hyndman
and Quelch had to demand a branch vote, which secured them 47 votes
against 33.

Somemembers of the Social-Democratic Party have voiced a most emphatic
protest against chauvinism in their ranks; there has emerged a very strong
minority ready to wage a serious struggle. The situation in the Independent
Labour Party is worse: there opportunism is no rarity. There the question
of whether socialists and the workers should support armaments is debated
quite calmly in “discussion” articles in the official organ of the Party,The Labour Leader(No. 16, April 21, 1911).

TheLondon correspondent ofVorwärtsjustly remarked that
the best criticism of the position of the S.D.P. was an article in theextremely jingoist Daily Mailwhichpraisedthe wisdom of
the Social-Democratic leaders. He quotes the beginning of the article in
that newspaper as saying: “It is encouraging to learn that, however
extravagant some of the fallacies and impossible some of the ideals of the
Social-Democratic Party in this country, there is at least one supremely
important question on which that Party is guided by reason and common
sense.

Thereally gratifying feature of the Birmingham Conference of the
I.L.P. was that from its ranks firm and determined voices were heard
protesting against the opportunist policy, the policy of dependence upon
the Liberals pursued by this party in general, and by the party leader,
Ramsay MacDonald, in particular. In reply to the reproach that the Labour
members say little about socialism in the House of Commons, MacDonald said
with virginal opportunist innocence that Parliament was hardly the place
for “propaganda speeches”. “The great function of the House of
Commons,” he said, “is to translate into legislation the socialism that
is preached in the country.” The speaker forgot all about the difference
between bourgeois social reform and socialism! He was prepared to expect
socialism from a bourgeois Parliament....

LeonardHall pointed out in his speech that the I.L.P. had been formed
in 1892 for the purpose of killing the old Labour Electoral Association
which was merely a wing of liberalism. They had buried the corpse (after
killing the Association), but it seemed to have revived in the Labour
Party. He added that the leader of the Party was pursuing this policy in
his speeches, letters and books.

AnotherI.L.P. member, George Lansbury, M. P., sharply criticised the
policy of the Parliamentary Labour Party for its dependence upon the
Liberals and its fear of “endangering” the Liberal government. Lansbury
said that more than once he had been so ashamed of the conduct of the
Labour members that he had nearly resigned. He went on to say that all the
time the Liberals tried to keep the House busy with minor questions and
that Labour members were unable to win independence for themselves. “I
have neverknown a time,” said Lansbury, “when both Liberals and Tories had not some
great question to hide the poverty question. I am in the House of Commons
with the picture before me of those men and women, who night after night
toiled in the slums of Bow and Bromley [poor districts in the East End of
London] to send me there. They worked for me because they thought I was
different from the Liberals and Tories.... They sent me to face the
question of poverty, poverty, poverty.... I appeal to you,” he said,
addressing the Conference, “to keep a solid party in the House of Commons
absolutely distinct, from the convenience of Liberals and Tories. We must
show no more mercy to the Liberals when they do wrong than to the
Tories.... The men and women who toil and suffer have nothing to hope for
from either Liberals or Tories; their only hope lies in, and salvation can
come from, their organised effort....” Let us “make it clear to the men
and women of the slums that even in Parliament we are true to what we say
outside, namely, that Liberals and Tories are the enemies of the people and
socialism their only hope”.

Lansbury’sspeech was interrupted by thunders of applause, and when he
finished he received a real ovation. In Germany such speeches are an
everyday occurrence. In Britain they are a novelty. And when such speeches
are beginning to be delivered, when worker delegates at the Conference of
the Independent Labour Party (unfortunately, very frequently independent of
socialism, but dependent upon the Liberals) applaud such speeches, then we
have the right to conclude thatin Britain, too, the spirit of
proletarian struggle is gaining the upper hand over the diplomacy of
opportunist parliamentarians like MacDonald. (Let us add in parenthesis
that this MacDonald recently sent the Italian reformists an expression of
his complete sympathy with their readiness to join a bourgeois Cabinet, and
his dislike for “dry theory”.)

Thespeeches of Hall, Lansbury, and others have not changed the policy
of the I.L.P. MacDonald remains at the head of the Party, and its policy
will continue to be opportunist. The bourgeois influence upon the
proletariat is strong—especially in democratic countries. But these
speeches do not pass without leaving a trace, they undermine the influenceof the bourgeoisie and of the opportunists. When the British people get a
daily newspaper going (andbothparties are seriously thinking
about this), such and only such speeches will reach the minds and hearts of
the working class. The Liberals of all countries, Russia included, are
rejoicing and laughing now at the sight of the predominance of opportunism
in the British labour movement. But “he laughs best who laughs last”.

[1]Engelsfrequently referred to the sectarian nature of British
Social-Democracy in letters to F. A. Sorge (see, for example, Engels’s
letters to Sorge on June 10, 1891, on March 18, 1893, on May 21, 1894 and
November 10, 1894; an English translation of the last letter is to be found
in: Marx and Engels,Selected Correspondence, Moscow, p. 556).